Lynn v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 10, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-451
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Tony Lynn, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212649

Appeal From Lancaster County Alison Renee Lee, Post-Conviction Relief Judge Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-451 Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). We otherwise deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

Petitioner appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, kidnapping, and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony that he faced a rape charge in Georgia. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Appellate courts have recognized that an issue will not be preserved for review where the trial court sustains a party's objection to improper testimony and the party does not subsequently move to strike the testimony or for a mistrial."); id. (explaining where a party's objection is sustained, "the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy [the] error, [and] failure to accept such a charge when offered . . . renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review"); see also State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 418, 692 S.E.2d 201, 204 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding the defendant waived any objection to improper testimony when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial but sustained his objection to improper testimony and he refused the trial court's offer to give a curative instruction).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.